Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

theadmiral

General North Korea discussion

Recommended Posts

Coin

 

 

 

Meh, there's hunger in North Korea just like there's hunger in the US and other countries. The thing is that America is pretty much enforcing that hunger, so it's kind of like blaming North Korea for feeling the results of something caused by American Imperialism.

 

But even if he did change his mind because of his country's alleged famine, that's good enough, no?

But in reality it's more likely the case that now that he has nukes, he can finally get proper negotiations going with the South and the US. Leverage is everything.

 

 

I don't know why you are taking a dismissive stance towards the hunger issue in N Korea or even comparing it to other countries (particularly the US) when it is very real (and has been for a long time) and not at all comparable to the US in particular.

 

As much as I don't care for American influence in the region, squarely placing all the blame at their feet is misleading at best and definitely a misrepresentation of events there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Thing is, we don't have the bigger picture of the famine situation in North Korea because the regime will lie about whatever's happening, and exterior sources will lie because it's in their interest to portray things as terrible as possible. Same deal being done with Venezuela. Any information coming either from North Korea or about North Korea must be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

 

I just take issue with the insinuation that his change of heart came solely from the famine that's happening over there. Sure, it helps push him towards an expedient solution. But it's far from being the sole, and I'd even say biggest, motivator.

 

And well, if US and South Korea weren't boycotting the food aid that North Korea has received, there wouldn't be a famine happening.

And sh*t, according to UN studies and others, support my assertion that the west has largely overestimated the famine.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caysle

He tries his best to make them look good, but nah it isn't even comparable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Nice Person

The hunger crisis in North is mostly just propaganda, especially when its very hypocritical the west is pushes this when they are mostly at fault for any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shyabang Shyabang

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

I certainly didn't see this coming, but it would certainly be interesting regarding the continued presence of American forces, whether or not the South allows them to stay. That's why I still think the main jist of this is to get American troops out of South Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay

When one group of imperialists (the West) are kept away from their interests, another imperialist (China) can then make a move in the region. But now that China is no longer trying to export communism (we think) and is turning its attention westwards through the great asiatic land mass, and that a great ocean separates China from the US, the US may be reeling in its tendrils from that region. A possible bonus from this is that China's belt & road thing must come up against Russia and others at some point, with all the possibilities for hot and cold wars this entails.

 

A most interesting situation: Rabidly capitalistic but tiny South Korea may have more in common with the emerging China than China has with a North Korea stagnating in China's Maoist past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOUGL4S1

This is pretty great news! Defenetly a better outcome than the Korean peninsula being covered in radioactive dust.

 

I also wonder what will happen regarding the Kim dinasty. People in NK are pretty much taught to not like people from outside their country, specially SK and USA, and now their supreme leader is making peace with them. Will Jong-Un be seen as the person who pretty much destroyed his father and grandfather's work for the country or as the person who improved quality of living for North Koreans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

You got it wrong. They aren't taught to hate foreigners: they're "taught" to hate Americans. The North Koreans don't carry a lot of hatred or resentment for South Koreans. To most of them, Koreans are all one.

 

Their hatred for the Americans can be justified, imo, given the state the US left them in during the Korean War.

 

If everything works out, Un would be remembered as the man of peace, who brought respect from the foreign countries, and finally peace with the south, beginning the steps for a possible reunification.

 

And as for China being imperialist, at least they dont seem to be willing to resort to war to get their way. I can see better things for the region coming out of a good partnership between Japan, China, and the Koreas, than with the perennial presence of the Yankees. America never cared for the world or other countries, only for themselves. Let the nations who are affected by the situations decide how best to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Things looking very promising at the summit!

 

w94hG9H.jpg

 

Baby steps, baby steps. "Analysts" and "specialists" are still questioning Kim's motives for this sudden shift in diplomacy. They can go suck it. Analysts and Specialists also predicted an all out war 6 months ago, and not one of them predicted Kim to go more diplomatic and take steps to approach South Korea. This is great news. Only skeptics are those who would wish for a war in the region.

 

EDIT: Here's the amazing footage of both leaders meeting each other face to face, crossing over to the South, and then to the North. Brilliant. History in the making, folks.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

This is truly inspiring, and a real testament to the powers of simple diplomacy and conversation. Any talk of reunification is, of course, premature, and will likely be a generational issue for the Korean people to solve in their own time and at their own discretion - but peaceful coexistence, and even friendliness, between the two states is an incredible leap forward.

Let's hope other nations stay well clear, and leave them to their business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

The reporters over there at the BBC are wetting their thongs with sensationalism over this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Apparently the war is coming to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay

Apparently the war is coming to an end.

 

And let the next conflict begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

I predict that North Korea is going to transition to a political and economic system similar to the Chinese one. The party and it's leaders in charge but with a Capitalistic system.

 

I might be wrong... But who the hell knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

That would be logical conclusion, in my opinion. I think reunification is still a couple decades away, but that North Korea will slowly transition into a little China. Friendlier relations in the region too. Good for everyone. (except for the warmongers across the pond).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Or they simply realized that they don't want to be wiped off the face of the earth. I don't see them making any significant changes to their regime anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

given the state the US left them in during the Korean War

Didn't the US kill 20% of their population?

 

And then Trump goes and hires John f*ckin' Bolton as his Nat Sec adviser. Even if this peace is another NK facade, it still came at the right time. They just have to pretend until Trump and Bolton are out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Yep. And pretty much destroyed ALL the infrastructure. It came to a point where the bombers were simply dumping the bombs in the ocean, because there were no actual viable targets. Everything was just completely destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cripto136

Not really fair to judge well over half a century later. We're talking about a conflict that took place a couple of years after WWll where strategic bombing was considered a viable tactic by any capable air force in a total war enviroment. Not to mention it was North Korea that invaded the South in the first place and promptly ignored any demands by the UN to withdraw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Sure, it was considered a viable tactic but that doesn't really make it any less abhorrent. The only reason it wasn't considered a war crime is because the US were the ones doing it. Same with their firebombing of Japanese cities, some with no military infrastructure whatsoever, with the sole purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, causing as much destruction and collateral damage as possible, and disrupting services.

 

America invades countries all the time and ignores any demands by anyone else to withdraw.It's perfectly fair to judge events such as these for what they are: atrocities. On all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cripto136

Again your speaking with the benefit of hindisght. When it comes to WWll, hardly any country has a leg to stand on ethics. It was Japan that chose to attack the United States shortly before declaring war (just like they did in the Russo Japanese war), and they were the ones who chose to drag it out despite overwhelming signs the war was lost. Also lets not forget their atrocities to both POW and civillians that is estimated by some to have killed over millions which unlike strategic bombing, had no functional goal in mind.

 

Also what exactly are you trying to imply? That the U.S should've just let North Korea swallow up the South? Let a backward nation control the entire peninsula?

Edited by Cripto136

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

The first turning point of the Korean war was when the UN broke through the Pusan perimeter with an amphibious assault. While air superiority over the area was a factor, it did not include the bombings of cities. The next turning point is when China intervenes and the US and South Korean forces are pushed back to the 38th parallel.

 

At that point, the war basically entered into a two year stalemate until the armistice was signed in 1952.

 

But it was also during the stalemate that the bombings of North Korea occurred. A strategy that effectively let nowhere, and only destroyed infrastructure. The South and US did not gain more land or concessions due to this, and considering it lasted for two years, I am not sure it made the North Koreans and China break faster.

 

Of course, that was the thinking. That the firebombing of Germany and Japan would lead to their opponents' surrender, as their civilians would force their leaders to end the war. But in either case, this wasn't the case.

 

The bombing of Dresden did not shorten the war, actual control of land in Germany is what finally brought down the regime, as the Russians stood in Berlin.

 

While US troops didn't exactly invade Tokyo or Kyoto before Japan surrendered, the fear of a US and Soviet invasion - in junction with the use of nuclear weapons, not just firebombing - Japan decided to call in quits earlier.

 

Why should North Korea - with China's backing - be any different? This is not an argument to be made with the benefit of hindsight. They had just tried it twice, and it didn't work.

 

You can argue that military commanders hadn't had enough time to study those campaigns, even after five years, but I am going out on a limp here, suggesting that military commanders were in favour of a brutal strategy to begin with. And only read the firebombing in Germany and Japan as post hoc ergo propter hoc, despite it being a fallacy, and used that argument for themselves and their political leaders to heavily bomb North Korea.

 

And it may have given them the wrong impression when the North Koreans decided to an armistice two years later, as if a confirmation that the firebombing strategy works.

 

From a military strategic perspective, it was a waste of time and resources. A classic case of a tactic pursued by a military-industrial complex than an efficient operation.

 

And that's not a reading you need to take with the benefit of hindsight. Eisenhower himself warned against the military-industrial complex. Plus the evidence against their tactics and strategy was only five years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cripto136

Well to clarifiy I wasn't saying strategic bombing of civillian targets was truly effective in its goal. As you said, that was the thinking. 5-7 years simply isn't long enough for military planners to overhaul their strategy especially when the people in charge were virtually the same from WWll.

 

Leaders in the First World War had nearly a decade to update their strategy after observing the Russo Japanese war (which was highly publicized at the time) and yet all the heavily flawed tactics in that conflict were used again anyways.

 

And yes I'd say you're right that North Korea calling for an armistice may have led to U.S generals falsely believing their bombing strategy worked to the point of doing it again in Vietnam for the last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Well to clarifiy I wasn't saying strategic bombing of civillian targets was truly effective in its goal. As you said, that was the thinking. 5-7 years simply isn't long enough for military planners to overhaul their strategy especially when the people in charge were virtually the same from WWll.

My point here is; a more critical reading of past engagement may have produced a different thinking. But military commanders are nothing if not stubborn.

 

They love to form a new military school of thought, and then stick with it, hence...

 

 

Leaders in the First World War had nearly a decade to update their strategy after observing the Russo Japanese war (which was highly publicized at the time) and yet all the heavily flawed tactics in that conflict were used again anyways.

It's actually worse than that, you can go all the way back to the American Civil War to see the same strategies/tactics used as in the First World War, that didn't work in that war either.

 

But because they engaged each other in more traditional fashion in the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 was basically won by artillery, they thought the same old strategies could work in a new grand war.

 

If anything, US commanders in the Korean War just repeated history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Again your speaking with the benefit of hindisght. When it comes to WWll, hardly any country has a leg to stand on ethics. It was Japan that chose to attack the United States shortly before declaring war (just like they did in the Russo Japanese war), and they were the ones who chose to drag it out despite overwhelming signs the war was lost. Also lets not forget their atrocities to both POW and civillians that is estimated by some to have killed over millions which unlike strategic bombing, had no functional goal in mind.

 

You mention hindsight; in hindsight, obviously the war was lost for Japan. At the time, though, the Japanese still believed and felt that if not winning the war, they could reach a better peace deal with America if they kept resisting. Not to mention the overwhelming victories they had in the region against China, Korea, Philippines...

 

 

 

Also what exactly are you trying to imply? That the U.S should've just let North Korea swallow up the South? Let a backward nation control the entire peninsula?

 

I'm not trying to imply anything: I'm explaining why it's no wonder North Korea completely hates America, after what they've done to their country. It's the same reason why many South Koreans still hate the Japanese, as do the Chinese. And the same reason several other nations around the globe hate America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cripto136

But that'a hardly an excuse when their entire plan from the start was to defeat the United States in a short decisive war as they knew full well Japan was not suited for a prolonged war with it. This is especially noticable when they couldn't supply their men adequetly with basic necessites like food, medical supplies, or even ammunition. Their decision to keep going was nothing short of stubborn pride.

 

North Korea hate the U.S because that's what their dictatorship government wants. North Korea has never been the pinnacle of human rights so its doubtful they still care about the bombing campaigns other then to convince their people how bad Americans were in the 50s all the while their government continues to torture and kill them.

 

God damn I hate typing on mobile.

Edited by Cripto136

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But that'a hardly an excuse when their entire plan from the start was to defeat the United States in a short decisive war

Sort of- it was more about harming morale so much that the US would be forced into a negotiated peace that allowed Japan to keep some or all of its conquests. It was a failure of a policy mostly because it made assumptions on the impact of events like Pearl Harbour which were based on the Japanese psyche and not the American one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

This is especially noticable when they couldn't supply their men adequetly with basic necessites like food, medical supplies, or even ammunition. Their decision to keep going was nothing short of stubborn pride.

 

Up until the Battle of Midway, Japan's naval power was pretty much unchallenged in the region. In hindsight, they made one vital strategic mistake in that battle. Which cost them everything in the end. But up until that moment, Japanese was reigning supreme in the Pacific Ocean.

 

In any event, they held on to the war for longer because they had full faith that worst comes to worst, they could strike a peace deal with the Soviets before completely capitulating to the Americans. By the point that the atomic bombs were thrown, the Japanese had already decided to end the war, and were waiting on their communications with the Soviets. It didn't work, as the Soviets declared on Japan and began their invasion to the north, giving them no option but to surrender to the Americans since an all out surrender to the Soviets would mean death to the Emperor. Arguably, the atomic bombs and the extreme firebombing of civilian centers done by the Americans was unnecessary.

 

 

North Korea hate the U.S because that's what their dictatorship government wants. North Korea has never been the pinnacle of human rights so its doubtful they still care about the bombing campaigns other then to convince their people how bad Americans were in the 50s all the while their government continues to torture and kill them.

 

Given the rhetoric that comes from certain segments of the American population, are they even wrong in thinking so? You ask right-wingers, they'll say that the solution to NK's situation is to nuke them. Several of Trump supporters were itching for him to just nuke NK out of the map. Thus pretty much confirming whatever propaganda the NK government was doing.

 

Speaking of human rights too, America isn't the pinnacle of it either, while it pretends to be so. Hundreds of thousands are suffering from poisoned water in Michigan for 4 years now. People being murdered in cold blood by the police for simply being in their backyard having a beer. Millions in jail forced to do labor for the prison to profit off of. Millions on the streets with nary a place to fall dead.

 

Not saying that NK is a paradise, cause it sure as sh*t isn't, but whatever is talked about humanitarian crisis inside it can be taken with a massive pinch of salt due to unreliable information. Plus, a lot of those crisis end up being aggravated by the reaction from other nations. "Oh your people are starving? Then we'll cancel all aid until the government is overthrown" kind of situation. So much for being humanitarian and all.

 

And sh*t, they don't even have to go all the way back to the 50s to show how Americans are evil. They can point to pretty much ANY intervention that America has tried in modern times, and point out how they all ended in a worse situation for the population, after years of bloody conflict. Anyone that isn't influenced by how the media portrays America as the good guys can see through the bullsh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.